On Aug. 22, 2008, a former ANTs employee, filed a putative class action complaint for all current and former software engineers, for failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to provide meal breaks, among other things, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.

The former employee is seeking an injunction, damages, attorneys' fees, and penalties.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

ANTs Software, Inc. -- http://www.ants.com/-- is developing the Ants Compatibility Server (ACS) and develops, markets andsupports the ANTs Data Server ADS. ACS is middleware that is intended to offer a method to move applications from one database to another and enable enterprises to achieve cost efficiencies by consolidating their applications onto fewer databases. The company had developed technologies used in the monitoring and management of applications and databases related to ACS.

APPLIED MATERIALS: Awaiting Final Approval of Settlement Pact-------------------------------------------------------------Applied Materials, Inc., is awaiting final approval from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, on the settlements agreement in the matter In Re Atlas Mining Company Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-428-N-EJL, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company, certain of its directors and former officers and employees, its prior auditor, Chisolm, Bierwolf & Nilson, LLC, and NanoClay & Technologies, Inc., its defunct, wholly owned subsidiary, are defendants in a class action filed on Oct. 11, 2007.

The Class Action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded common stock during the period Jan. 19, 2005 through Oct. 8, 2007. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the company damaged purchasers by making material misstatements in publicly disseminated press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the extent of the halloysite deposit on company property, the availability and quality of halloysite for sale, and claimed sales of halloysite. The Complaint also alleges that the company improperly manipulated reported earnings with respect to purported halloysite sales and misrepresentations by the individual defendants as to its financial statements. The plaintiffs seek remedies under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On July 2, 2009, the company entered into a Settlement Agreement with the lead plaintiffs in the class action Under the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement the company will pay plaintiffs $1,250,000 (which includes fees to plaintiff's counsel), to be funded by the proceeds of an insurance policy issued by Navigators Insurance Co., in exchange for release of all claims against the company, NanoClay & Technologies, Inc., and William T. Jacobson, Robert Dumont, Ronald Price and Barbara Suveg.

The company will also fund up to $75,000 to fund expenses in connection with notification to class members. The Class Action Settlement Agreement is the settlement agreement contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding described in its prior response and the terms of it are consistent with the terms of such MOU. The Settlement Agreement is subject to a number of conditions including successful completion of confirmatory due diligence by the lead plaintiffs and final court approval.

DirectSat is a subsidiary of Unitek Holdings, Inc. Unitek is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berliner Communications, Inc.

On June 11, 2008, three named plaintiffs, who were formerly employed as technicians by DirectSat USA, LLC, a UniTek subsidiary, filed a claim in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Illinois Wage and Hour Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

These allegations related to the payment of overtime.

The plaintiffs have sought and have been granted class certification for the state law claims. They are demanding $7.4 million in damages related to these claims.

On Feb. 9, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel filed a companion case, Lashon Jacks v. DirectSat et al., in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court, seeking to expand the class in the Farmer case to include all technicians in Illinois that worked with DirectSat after June 10, 2008. No additional damages claims have been made, according to Berliner Communications, Inc.'s March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Berliner Communications, Inc. -- http://www.bcisites.com/-- is a self-performing, service vendor to the wireless communications industry, providing a range of services, on a nationwide basis. Its activities include site acquisition and zoning; infrastructure equipment construction and installation; network services; radio frequency and network design and engineering; radio transmission base station installation and modification, and in-building network design, engineering and construction. The company provides some combination of these services primarily to companies in the wireless telecommunications and/or data transmission industries, cable operators, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and, to a lesser extent, to utility companies and government entities. Berliner conducts its operations though its wholly owned subsidiary, BCI Communications, Inc. (BCI). The company operates in two business segments: infrastructure construction and technical services, and site acquisition and zoning.

On Feb. 15, 2008, plaintiffs, former employees of FTS USA, a UniTek subsidiary, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging violations of the FLSA related to overtime payments.

Conditional class certification was granted, and plaintiffs have made a claim for damages of $3.2 million.

No further developments were reported in the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Berliner Communications, Inc. -- http://www.bcisites.com/-- is a self-performing, service vendor to the wireless communications industry, providing a range of services, on a nationwide basis. Its activities include site acquisition and zoning; infrastructure equipment construction and installation; network services; radio frequency and network design and engineering; radio transmission base station installation and modification, and in-building network design, engineering and construction. The company provides some combination of these services primarily to companies in the wireless telecommunications and/or data transmission industries, cable operators, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and, to a lesser extent, to utility companies and government entities. Berliner conducts its operations though its wholly owned subsidiary, BCI Communications, Inc. (BCI). The company operates in two business segments: infrastructure construction and technical services, and site acquisition and zoning.

BETAWAVE CORP: Must Respond to "Sunrise" Complaint in April-----------------------------------------------------------Betawave Corporation has until April 2010 to respond to the complaint filed by Sunrise Equity Partners, L.P., according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In January 2010, Sunrise brought an action against the company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on behalf of itself and all other purchasers of the company's securities in the 2006 private placement.

In the complaint, Sunrise alleged, among other things, that the company breached the representation in the subscription agreement for the 2006 private placement which provided that no purchaser in the private placement had an agreement or understanding on terms that differed substantially from those of any other investor.

Sunrise claimed that the company breached this representation because Mr. Zehil's entities received certificates without any restrictive legend while all other investors in the private placement received certificates with such restrictive legends. Sunrise had originally filed this suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of new York, but later dismissed this suit without prejudice in February 2009.

The company was served with the complaint in January 2010 and has until April 2010 to respond to the matter.

Betawave Corporation -- http://www.betawave.com/-- formerly GoFish Corporation, is a digital media company. The company has assembled some of the casual gaming, virtual world, social play and entertainment Websites into a network of sites (the Betawave Network). It generates revenue by selling advertising campaigns on those sites to brand advertisers. The Betawave Network delivers scale with a monthly audience of over 25 million and attention with an average audience engagement of more than 48 minutes per month. Some of the publishers in the Betawave portfolio include Miniclip.com, Cartoon Doll Emporium, Shutterfly and Cookie Jar Entertainment. In February 2009, the Company launched Betawave television (TV), an ad-supported video platform with distribution on several publishers in the Betawave Network. The bulk of the company's revenues come from direct sales to brand advertisers.

BLUEGREEN CORP: FLSA Violation Suit in Wisconsin Dismissed----------------------------------------------------------A lawsuit alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act against Bluegreen Corporation has been dismissed after the settlement amount was paid, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In Cause No. 08-cv-401-bbc, styled Steven Craig Kelly and Jack Clark, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bluegreen Corporation, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, two former sales representatives brought a lawsuit on July 28, 2008 in the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of themselves and putative class members who are or were employed by the company as sales associates and compensated on a commission-only basis.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and that they and the collective class are or were covered, non-exempt employees under federal wage and hour laws, and were entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay consistent with the FLSA.

On July 10, 2009, the parties settled the case and the company agreed to pay approximately $1.5 million (including attorney's fees and costs) without admitting any wrongdoing. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the settlement was paid and the case dismissed.

Bluegreen Corporation -- http://www.bluegreencorp.com/-- is a provider of places to live and play through its resorts and residential community businesses. The company is organized into two divisions: Bluegreen Resorts and Bluegreen Communities. Bluegreen Resorts acquires, develops and markets vacation ownership interests (VOIs) in resorts located in drive-to vacation destinations and provides various services to third-party resort owners. Bluegreen Communities acquires, develops and subdivides property and markets residential land homesites, which are sold directly to retail customers who seek to build a home in a residential setting, in some cases on properties featuring a golf course and related amenities, and also offers real estate consulting and other services to third parties. It also generates income from its resort management business and through interest income earned from the financing of individual purchasers of VOIs, and homesites sold by Bluegreen Communities.

BLUEGREEN CORP: Court Mulling on Certification in "Schwarz" Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia has yet to decide whether to certify a class in the matter styled Paul A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of Georgia, LLC and Bluegreen Corporation, Cause No. 2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 18, 2008, Plaintiffs brought suit against the company alleging fraud and misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.

Plaintiff subsequently withdrew the fraud and misrepresentation counts and replaced them with a count alleging violation of racketeering laws, including mail fraud and wire fraud.

On Jan. 25, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a second complaint seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a class action representing more than 100 persons who were harmed by the alleged racketeering activities in a similar manner as Plaintiffs.

No decision has yet been made by the Court as to whether they certify a class.

Bluegreen Corporation -- http://www.bluegreencorp.com/-- is a provider of places to live and play through its resorts and residential community businesses. The company is organized into two divisions: Bluegreen Resorts and Bluegreen Communities. Bluegreen Resorts acquires, develops and markets vacation ownership interests (VOIs) in resorts located in drive-to vacation destinations and provides various services to third-party resort owners. Bluegreen Communities acquires, develops and subdivides property and markets residential land homesites, which are sold directly to retail customers who seek to build a home in a residential setting, in some cases on properties featuring a golf course and related amenities, and also offers real estate consulting and other services to third parties. It also generates income from its resort management business and through interest income earned from the financing of individual purchasers of VOIs, and homesites sold by Bluegreen Communities.

CALIFORNIA: Suit Complains About CALPERS Long-Term Care Program---------------------------------------------------------------Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that the State of California denies its public employees and their same-sex spouses long-term care benefits under the state's retirement system, a class action claims in Federal Court. The six lead plaintiffs say the California Public Employees Retirement System unconstitutionally bars same-sex partners from enrolling in its long-term care insurance program, though it allows heterosexual married partners of public employees to do so.

CALPERS even permits adult siblings, parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents to enroll in the program and receive benefit payouts to provide at-home care to plan beneficiaries. The couples say they want the right to include their loved ones in the plan, as CALPERS repeatedly reminds its employees to do in its information guide.

The complaint cites a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report stating that "approximately 70 percent of Americans over the age of 65 -- approximately nine million people -- will need long-term care services."

But most people are not covered under private health insurance or Medicare for long-term care in the event that they need help with everyday activities due to frailty, chronic illness or Alzheimer's disease.

"Without long-term care insurance, the high costs of care can force families to make painful choices such as selling a family home to pay the bills, or having a working adult give up a job and income to work unpaid as a primary caretaker for a loved one who is no longer able to care for herself," the complaint states.

When he called to request enrollment materials, Mr. Dragovich says a program representative told him that "same-sex spouses are ineligible to join" based on federal law.

Shortly after his attorney spoke with CALPERS on his behalf, and was told that same-sex spouses were barred from the program so it could keep its tax-qualified status, Mr. Dragovich says CALPERS suspended enrollment for any new enrollees.

"Already almost two years have passed since Dragovich first tried to enroll his spouse," the complaint states.

The class seeks declaratory judgment and an injunction ordering the CALPERS Board of Administration to allow same-sex spouses to join during any of the plan's future open enrollment periods.

The class is represented by Claudia Center with the Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center of San Francisco.

A copy of the Complaint in Dragovich, et al. v. United States Department of the Treasury, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01564 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

CONVERTED ORGANICS: Continues to Defend "Leeseberg" Suit--------------------------------------------------------Converted Organics Inc., continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit captioned Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 11, 2008, the company received notice that a complaint had been filed in a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of 59 persons or entities that purchased units pursuant to a financing terms agreement, or FTA, dated April 11, 2006.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith in connection with the alleged failure to register certain securities issued in the FTA, and the redemption of our Class A warrants in November 2008. The lawsuit seeks damages related to the failure to register certain securities, including alleged late fee payments, of approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified damages related to the redemption of the Class A warrants.

In February 2009, the company filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Complaint. On Oct. 7, 2009, the Court concluded that Leeseberg has properly stated a claim for actual damages resulting from the company's alleged breach of contract, but that Leeseberg has failed to state claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and the Court dismissed such claims.

On Nov. 6, 2009, the company filed its answer to the Complaint with the Court. On March 4, 2010, the parties participated in a Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference, and began discussing discovery issues.

Converted Organics Inc. -- http://www.convertedorganics.com/-- operates processing facilities that use food waste as raw material to manufacture all-natural soil amendment products combining nutritional and disease suppression characteristics. In addition to its sales in the agribusiness market, the company sells and distributes its products in the turf management and retail markets. As of Dec.31, 2008, the company operated two facilities: Woodbridge facility and Gonzales facility. The company derives revenue from two sources: tip fees and product sales. Waste haulers pay the tip fees to the company for accepting food waste generated by food distributors, such as grocery stores, produce docks, fish markets and food processors, and by hospitality venues, such as hotels, restaurants, convention centers and airports. In March 2010, the company acquired a line of poultry-based organic fertilizer products.

CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Faces Second Amended Complaint in Delaware---------------------------------------------------------------Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp. faces a second amended class action complaint styled Goodman v. Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp., et al., filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The complaint was filed on Nov. 2, 2009, against the company and the former directors of Triplecrown challenging the Merger and alleging that Triplecrown's former directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing Triplecrown to take ultra vires action and failing to provide Triplecrown's stockholders with adequate time and information to determine whether to support the Merger.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to have the Merger declared void, to have Triplecrown dissolved, to have Triplecrown's trust account restored and distributed pro rata to members of the putative class of public stockholders of Triplecrown and an opportunity for members of the putative class to exercise conversion rights in connection with the Merger. The defendants' answer was due on or before November 30, 2009.

On Dec. 9, 2009, a second amended class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the former directors of Triplecrown. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and their duty of disclosure in connection with Triplecrown's merger into the company. The plaintiff seeks, as alternative remedies, damages in the amount of $9.74 per share, to have Triplecrown's trust account restored and distributed pro rata to members of the putative class, a quasi-appraisal remedy for members of the putative class, and an opportunity for members of the putative class to exercise conversion rights in connection with the merger. The defendants filed an answer on Dec. 23, 2009.

Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp. was formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of Triplecrown Acquisition Corp. and CAT Merger Sub, Inc., a Georgia corporation, was incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the company on Aug. 31, 2009. The company and Merger Sub were formed in order to allow Triplecrown to complete the transactions contemplated by an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization, dated as of Sept. 4, 2009, as amended, among Triplecrown, the Company, Merger Sub, Cullen Agricultural Technologies, Inc. and Cullen Inc. Holdings Ltd., an affiliate of Eric J. Watson, the Company's chief executive officer, secretary, chairman of the board and treasurer, and the then holder of all of the outstanding common stock of Cullen Agritech.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Decertification of "Richter" Complaint------------------------------------------------------------Dollar General Corporation intends to seek decertification of the class in the suit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:06-cv-01537-LSC, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 29, 2010.

The suit was filed on Aug. 7, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff alleges that she and other current and former Dollar General store managers were improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store managers. The company opposed the plaintiff's motion. On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class.

On May 30, 2007, the court stayed all proceedings in the case, including the sending of a notice to the class, to evaluate, among other things, certain appeals pending in the Eleventh Circuit involving claims similar to those raised in this action. During the stay, the statute of limitations was tolled for potential class members. The stay was extended on several occasions, the last of which expired on Oct. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or former Dollar General store managers, and approximately 3,860 individuals opted into the lawsuit.

The company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that this action is not appropriate for collective action treatment. The company intends to vigorously defend this action and expects to ask the court to decertify the class at the conclusion of the discovery period.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a discount retailer. As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877 stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. The company offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables, seasonal, home products and apparel. Its merchandise includes national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter & Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills, Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand selections. The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding common stock.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Brickey" in New York---------------------------------------------------------Dollar General Corporation continues to defend a lawsuit entitled Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corporation, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-DGL, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 29, 2010.

On May 18, 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit entitled Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corporation (Western District of New York, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-DGL, originally filed on Feb. 9, 2006 and amended on May 12, 2006.

The Brickey plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the FLSA and as a class under New York, Ohio, Maryland and North Carolina wage and hour statutes on behalf of, among others, assistant store managers who claim to be owed wages (including overtime wages) under those statutes. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the court will permit this action to proceed collectively or as a class.

However, the Company believes that this action is not appropriate for either collective or class treatment and that the company's wage and hour policies and practices comply with both federal and state law.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a discount retailer. As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877 stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. The company offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables, seasonal, home products and apparel. Its merchandise includes national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter & Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills, Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand selections. The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding common stock.

On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was paid less than male store managers because of her sex, in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males because of their sex, and to add allegations that the company's compensation practices disparately impact females. Under the amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of current and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act. The company opposed plaintiffs' motion.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class of females under the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar General as store managers between Nov. 30, 2004 and Nov. 30, 2007.

The notice was issued on Jan. 11, 2008, and persons to whom the notice was sent were required to opt into the suit by March 11, 2008. Approximately 2,100 individuals have opted into the lawsuit. The company will have an opportunity at the close of the discovery period to seek decertification of the Equal Pay Act class, and the company expects to file such motion.

The plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification relating to their Title VII claims. The company expects such motion to be filed within the next few months and will strenuously oppose such a motion.

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the court ultimately will permit the Calvert action to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act or as a class under Title VII. However, the Company believes that the case is not appropriate for class or collective treatment and that its policies and practices comply with the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a discount retailer. As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877 stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. The company offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables, seasonal, home products and apparel. Its merchandise includes national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter & Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills, Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand selections. The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding common stock.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Cox" Complaint in Iowa-----------------------------------------------------------Dollar General Corporation continues to defend a suit captioned Julie Cox, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al-Case No. LACV-034423, alleging violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 29, 2010.

On July 30, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed in the District Court for Dallas County, Iowa, in which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleges that the Company discriminates against pregnant employees on the basis of sex and retaliates against employees in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

Cox seeks to represent a class of "all current, former and future employees from the State of Iowa who are employed by Dollar General who suffered from, are currently suffering from or in the future may suffer from" alleged sex/pregnancy discrimination and retaliation and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as equitable, compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the court ultimately will permit the Cox action to proceed as a class. However, the Company believes that the case is not appropriate for class treatment and that its policies and practices comply with the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a discount retailer. As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877 stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. The company offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables, seasonal, home products and apparel. Its merchandise includes national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter & Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills, Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand selections. The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding common stock.

GENESCO INC: Settlement of "Jacobs" Labor Gets Preliminary OK-------------------------------------------------------------The settlement of a putative class-action suit, Jacobs v. Genesco Inc., et al., Case No. __________ (Calif. Super. Ct., Shasta Cty.), has received preliminary approval from the court, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on June 16, 2008, and alleges violations of the California Labor Code involving payment of wages, failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, and unfair competition, and seeking back pay, penalties and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the court dismissed certain of the plaintiff's claims, including claims for conversion and punitive damages.

On May 5, 2009, the company and the plaintiff's counsel reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on a claims made basis. The minimum payment by the company pursuant to the agreement is $398,000; the maximum is $703,000.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

Genesco, Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a wholesaler of branded footwear.

JONES FINANCIAL: Edward Jones' Motion to Dismiss Suit Pending-------------------------------------------------------------The motion of the defendants, which includes Edward Jones, to dismiss a class action stemming from the sale of Lehman Bonds remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In October 2008, a class action suit was filed in Arkansas state court, Saline County, under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 Act, against certain officers and directors of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and a syndicate of underwriters, including Edward Jones, of Lehman Bonds sold pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus dated May 30, 2006 and various prospectus supplements dated October 22, 2006 and thereafter.

In November 2008, a similar suit was filed in Arkansas state court, Benton County against the same defendants stemming from the sale of 6.5% Lehman Bonds maturing Oct. 25, 2007, pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus and prospectus supplement dated Aug. 2, 2007.

Plaintiffs in both actions allege the defendants made material misrepresentations to the purchasers of Lehman Bonds.

While each lawsuit relates to a different series of Lehman Bonds, the plaintiffs in each suit seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

In February 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these two actions to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with similar actions currently pending in the SDNY. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Securities Act Claims in April 2009, which is currently pending in SDNY.

No further updates were reorted in The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is organized under the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Missouri. The Partnership is the successor to Whitaker & Co., which was established in 1871 and dissolved on Oct. 1, 1943, the organization date of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. -- http://www.edwardjones.com/-- the Partnership's principal operating subsidiary. Edward Jones was reorganized on Aug. 28, 1987, which was the organization date of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. The Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward Jones, is a registered broker-dealer primarily serving individual investors. As the ultimate parent company of Edward Jones, the Partnership is a holding company with no direct operations. Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the retail brokerage business through the sale of listed and unlisted securities and insurance products, investment banking, principal transactions and as a distributor of mutual fund shares, and revenue related to assets held by and account services provided to its customers. Edward Jones conducts business in the United States of America and Canada, with its customers, various brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, depositories and banks. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Partnership operates in two geographic operating segments, the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the Partnership conducted business in the United Kingdom through Nov. 12, 2009, when its U.K. subsidiary was sold.

The actions relate to bonds underwritten by Edward Jones and other brokerage firms for the purpose of financing construction of an event center in Prescott Valley, Arizona. The plaintiffs allege the underwriters, including Edward Jones, made material misrepresentations and omissions in the Preliminary Official Statement dated Nov. 4, 2005 and/or in the Official Statement dated Nov. 18, 2005.

The plaintiffs specifically allege the defendants violated Rule 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5, certain state securities acts, and committed common law torts.

The Covin matter was filed as a putative class action in which the plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the issued bonds. Allstate is suing as a purchaser of the bonds, and Wells Fargo filed a separate action as Trustee on behalf of all bond holders.

In all three matters, the plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damage including attorneys' fees, costs, expense, rescission or statutory damages, out-of-pocket damages and prejudgment interest.

No further updates were reorted in The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is organized under the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Missouri. The Partnership is the successor to Whitaker & Co., which was established in 1871 and dissolved on Oct. 1, 1943, the organization date of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. -- http://www.edwardjones.com/-- the Partnership's principal operating subsidiary. Edward Jones was reorganized on Aug. 28, 1987, which was the organization date of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. The Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward Jones, is a registered broker-dealer primarily serving individual investors. As the ultimate parent company of Edward Jones, the Partnership is a holding company with no direct operations. Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the retail brokerage business through the sale of listed and unlisted securities and insurance products, investment banking, principal transactions and as a distributor of mutual fund shares, and revenue related to assets held by and account services provided to its customers. Edward Jones conducts business in the United States of America and Canada, with its customers, various brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, depositories and banks. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Partnership operates in two geographic operating segments, the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the Partnership conducted business in the United Kingdom through Nov. 12, 2009, when its U.K. subsidiary was sold.

MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing------------------------------------------------------------Macy's, Inc. is still facing a purported class-action suit filed by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in the company's Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan, according to its Sept. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

On Oct. 3, 2007, Mr. Shanehchian filed a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan and The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Planbetween Feb. 27, 2005 and the present.

The complaint charges the company, as well as certain current and former members of its board of directors and certain current and former members of management, with breach of fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan, alleging that the defendants made false and misleadingstatements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects in relation to the integration of the acquired Mayoperations, resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005 and May 15, 2007.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retailstores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's, women's and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, homefurnishings and other consumer goods. As of Feb. 2, 2008, the Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District ofColumbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and Bloomingdale's. The Company, through its divisions, conductselectronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog businesses under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com andBloomingdale's By Mail. In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an online bridal registry to customers.

MICHAELS STORES: Class Certification Denied in "McLeod" Suit------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification in a purported class action against Michaels Stores, Inc., according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

On March 30, 2009, Nicole McLeod, a former Michaels employee, commenced a purported class action proceeding against the company on behalf of herself and current and former hourly retail employees employed in California from March 30, 2005 to the present. The McLeod suit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and removed by the Company to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The McLeod suit alleges that Michaels failed to provide meal and rest periods (or compensation in lieu thereof) and failed to pay wages and/or overtime pay. The McLeod suit also alleges that this conduct was in breach of California's unfair competition law. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, restitution, damages for unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Dec. 15, 2009, the Court denied certification for the class, leaving the case with one individual plaintiff.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's largest specialty retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall d‚cor, and seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself home decorator. As of March 24, 2010, the company owns and operates 1,027 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 148 Aaron Brothers stores.

MICHAELS STORES: Defends "Tijero" Suit in California----------------------------------------------------Michaels Stores, Inc., defends a purported class action filed by a former assistant manager of Aaron Brothers, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

On Feb. 12, 2010, the company was served with a lawsuit filed on May 7, 2009 by Jose Tijero, a former assistant manager for Aaron Brothers as a purported class action proceeding on behalf of himself and all current and former hourly retail employees employed in California.

The Tijero suit, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, alleges that Aaron Brothers failed to pay all wages and overtime, failed to provide its hourly employees with adequate meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu thereof), and accurate wage statements and alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of California's unfair competition law.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's largest specialty retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall d‚cor, and seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself home decorator. As of March 24, 2010, the company owns and operates 1,027 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 148 Aaron Brothers stores.

MICHAELS STORES: Aaron Brothers Faces "Acevedo" Suit in Calif.--------------------------------------------------------------Aaron Brothers, Inc., faces a purported class action alleging that its stores are not compliant with disability access non-discrimination statutes, according to Michaels Stores, Inc.'s March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

Michaels Stores operates Aaron Brothers stores.

On March 12, 2010, Arthur Acevedo, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against Aaron Brothers, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated mobility impaired/wheelchair bound persons.

The suit alleges that certain of Aaron Brothers retail stores in California are not compliant with disability access non-discrimination statutes of California and the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys fees and costs.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's largest specialty retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall d‚cor, and seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself home decorator. As of March 24, 2010, the company owns and operates 1,027 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 148 Aaron Brothers stores.

MICHAELS STORES: Carson's Appeal of Dismissal Remains Pending-------------------------------------------------------------The appeal of Linda Carson on the dismissal of a purported class action against Michaels Stores, Inc., remains pending in the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, San Diego, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

On Aug. 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated California consumers. The Carson suit alleges that Michaels unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip code) as part of a credit card transaction. The plaintiff sought statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. The company contested certification of this claim as a class action and filed a motion to dismiss the claim. On March 9, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

The plaintiff appealed this decision to the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, San Diego, where the matter is now pending resolution.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's largest specialty retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall d‚cor, and seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself home decorator. As of March 24, 2010, the company owns and operates 1,027 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 148 Aaron Brothers stores.

NEW LEAF: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Calif. Proposition 65----------------------------------------------------------------New Leaf Brands, Inc., remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit under California Proposition 65.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the company was notified that it was named as a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a class action lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly failing to disclose the amount of lead in one of its products. Although the product in question was sold as part of the company's Asset Sale to Nutra, Inc., the company remains as a named defendant in the case.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

New Leaf Brands, Inc. -- http://www.newleafbrands.com/-- formerly Baywood International, Inc., develops, markets and distributes ready-to-drink (RTD) beverages and nutraceutical products. The Company operates through the combination of a diversified nutraceutical company (LifeTime brand) and a RTD tea company (New Leaf brand).

NORTH AMERICAN GALVANIZING: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Says----------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that North American Galvanizing & Coatings is selling itself too cheap to AZZ Inc., for $126 million or $7.50 a share, stockholders say in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Akerman v. North American Galvanizing& Coatings, Inc., et al., Case No. 5407 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Opposes Class Certification in Three Suits------------------------------------------------------------Pacific WebWorks, Inc., intends to oppose class certification in three lawsuits in relation to its procedures in selling its products in the ordinary course of business, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

During November 2009 three lawsuits were filed against Pacific WebWorks in various jurisdictions. The legal actions allege similar claims related to procedures the company uses to sell its products in the ordinary course of business.

On Nov. 9, 2009, Barbara Ford filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. A second action was filed on Nov. 12, 2009, by Deanna Pelletier in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano. A third action was filed by Lisa Rasmussen on Nov. 20, 2009, in the Superior Court of Washington, Snohomish County.

All plaintiffs in these cases are being represented by the same legal firm and each complaint seeks class action certification. The complaints allege that Pacific WebWorks violated consumer protection and federal RICO laws, committed fraud and used deceptive trade practices in relation to the manner in which Pacific WebWorks charges for purchases of its products. Each action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, plus reasonable costs and attorney fees.

In response to these actions, Pacific WebWorks retained the law firm of Snell and Wilmer as legal counsel.

Discovery is beginning on the class certification phase in the Illinois, Washington and California lawsuits. The company's legal counsel intends to oppose class certification and move to dismiss all claims.

Pacific WebWorks, Inc. -- http://www.pacificwebworks.com/-- is an application service provider and software development firm that develops business software technologies and services for business merchants and organizations using Internet and other technologies. The company specializes in turnkey applications allowing small to medium sized businesses to expand over the Internet. Its product family provides tools for Website creation, management and maintenance, electronic businessstorefront hosting and Internet payment systems for the small to medium sized business and organization. The company has four wholly owned operating subsidiaries: Intellipay, Inc., TradeWorks Marketing, Inc., FundWorks, Inc. and Pacific WebWorksInternational, LTD.

PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Seeks to Dismiss "Hahn" Suit in Utah------------------------------------------------------Pacific WebWorks, Inc., through its counsel Snell and Wilmer, has filed a motion dismiss all claims in a suit filed by Song Que Hahn, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Jan. 5, 2010, a lawsuit was filed by Hahn, a California resident, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. On Feb. 8, 2010, the company's legal counsel filed a motion to strike the class allegations and a motion to dismiss all claims, except the breach of contract claims.

On March 9, 2010 Hahn filed an opposition to the company's motions and counsel intends to refute the arguments presented in the oppositions.

Pacific WebWorks, Inc. -- http://www.pacificwebworks.com/-- is an application service provider and software development firm that develops business software technologies and services for business merchants and organizations using Internet and other technologies. The company specializes in turnkey applications allowing small to medium sized businesses to expand over the Internet. Its product family provides tools for Website creation, management and maintenance, electronic businessstorefront hosting and Internet payment systems for the small to medium sized business and organization. The company has four wholly owned operating subsidiaries: Intellipay, Inc., TradeWorks Marketing, Inc., FundWorks, Inc. and Pacific WebWorksInternational, LTD.

PECO II: Faces Amended Complaint Over Planned Lineage Merger------------------------------------------------------------PECO II, Inc., faces an amended complaint in relation to its planned merger with Lineage Power Holdings, Inc., according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 18, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Lineage Power and Lineage Power Ohio Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Lineage.

The company, each of the members of the company's board of directors, Lineage Power, and Lineage Power Ohio were named defendants in a purported class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga, County, Ohio, on or about March 5, 2010, and styled Harshad Sandesara v. PECO II, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 10 720332.

Plaintiff is a shareholder of the company and seeks both to enjoin the merger and damages.

On March 15, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a motion for expedited proceedings.

Thereafter, on March 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking that the court block the merger.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the directors of the company, aided and abetted by the company and Lineage, breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the directors' recommendation that the shareholders adopt a proposed merger transaction between the company and Merger Sub that would result in the company being a wholly owned subsidiary of Lineage.

On March 25, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a brief in opposition to the motion for expedited proceedings. On March 26, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery and ordered the company to supplement its proxy statement filed March 18, 2010, with specific information concerning the background of the merger.

PECO II, Inc. -- http://www.peco2.com/-- provides a range of solutions to the telecommunications customers. The company designs and manufactures and markets communications-specific power products. It also provides onsite engineering and installation (E&I), systems integration, installation, maintenance, and monitoring services to customers. The company's products include power systems, power distribution equipment and systems integration products. PECO II's power systems provide a primary supply of power to support the infrastructure of communications service providers, including local exchange carriers, long distance carriers, wireless service providers, Internet service providers and broadband access providers. Its power distribution equipment directs this power to specific customer communications equipment. Its operations are organized within two segments: products and services.

PINNACLE GAS: Faces Consolidated Suit on Powder Holdings Merger---------------------------------------------------------------Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc., faces a consolidated suit captioned In re Pinnacle Gas shareholder litigation, C.A. No.-5313-CC, in relation to its merger agreement with Powder Holdings, LLC, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 23, 2010, the company entered into a merger agreement with Powder Holdings. As a result of the merger agreement, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against some or all of the following: Thomas McGonagle, Peter Schoonmaker, Robert Cabes, Jeffery Gunst, Sylvester Johnson, F. Gardner Parker, Susan Schnabel, Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc., DLJ Merchant Banking Partners III, L.P., Powder Holdings, LLC and Powder Acquisition Co.

On March 24, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the two actions under the caption in re Pinnacle Gas shareholder litigation C.A. No.-5313-CC (Del Ch.) and appointing co-lead counsel.

The Complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other things, that the Merger would be the product of a flawed process and that the consideration to be paid to the company's stockholders in the Merger would be unfair and inadequate.

The Complaints further allege, among other things, that the company's officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, taking actions designed to deter higher offers from other potential acquirers and failing to maximize the value of Pinnacle to its stockholders. In addition, the lawsuits allege that DLJ, as a controlling stockholder of Pinnacle, violated fiduciary duties to Pinnacle stock holders. These lawsuits seek, among other relief, injunctive relief from joining the transaction and costs of the action, including reasonable attorney's fees.

Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. -- http://www.pinnaclegas.com/-- is an independent energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of domestic onshore natural gas reserves. The company focuses on the development of coalbed methane (CBM) properties located in the Rocky Mountain region, and is a holder of CBM acreage in the Powder River Basin. In addition, the company owns over 94% of the rights to develop conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas in zones below its existing CBM reserves. Substantially all of its undeveloped acreage as of Dec. 31, 2008, was located in the northern end of the Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming and southern Montana.

PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Continues to Defend Securities Lawsuit-----------------------------------------------------------Prosper Marketplace, Inc., continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Nov. 26, 2008, plaintiffs, Christian Hellum, William Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the company, and certain of its executive officers and directors. The suit was brought on behalf of all loan note purchasers in the company's online lending platform from Jan. 1, 2006 through Oct. 14, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal securities laws. The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages and the right of rescission against Prosper and the other named defendants, as well as treble damages against Prosper and the award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Some of the individual defendants filed a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, which was heard on June 11, 2009 and sustained by the court with leave to amend until July 10, 2009. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2009, to which the same individual defendants demurred. On Sept. 15, 2009, this demurrer was sustained by the court without leave to amend.

Suit vs. Greenwich Insurance

Prosper's insurance carrier with respect to the class action lawsuit, Greenwich Insurance Company, has denied coverage. On Aug. 21, 2009, Prosper filed suit against Greenwich in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Prosper is entitled to coverage under its policy with Greenwich for losses arising out of the class action lawsuit as well as damages and the award of attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Prosper Marketplace, Inc. is an online marketplace for person-to-person lending. Prosper's website provides an online marketplace for loans where people list and bid on loans with interest rates of return determined through Prosper's online auction platform.

ULTA SALON: Defends Amended Employment Suit in California----------------------------------------------------------Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., defends an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

In July 2009, the lawsuit was filed against the company and certain unnamed defendants in California.

The suit alleges that Ulta misclassified its store General Managers and Salon Managers as exempt (from the Fair LaborStandards Act and California Labor Code).

The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of this alleged misclassification.

On Aug. 27, 2009, the company filed its answer to the lawsuit and on Aug. 31, 2009, the company moved the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Nov. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding another named plaintiff.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/-- is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the United States.

ULTA SALON: Court Gives Final Nod to $3.75 Million Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman gave his final approval to the proposed $3,750,000 settlement in In Re Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-7083 (N.D. Ill.), according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

In December 2007 and January 2008, three putative securities class-action complaints were filed against the company andcertain of its current and then-current executive officers. Each suit alleges that the prospectus and registration statementfiled pursuant to the company's initial public offering contained materially false and misleading statements and failedto disclose material facts. Each suit claims violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,and the two later filed suits added claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the associated Rule 10b-5.

On March 18, 2008, the suits were consolidated and plaintiffs in Mirsky v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-07083, were appointed lead plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in May 2008, alleging no new violations of the securities laws not asserted in the prior complaints. It adds no new defendants and drops one of the then-current officers as a defendant.

On May 29, 2009, the company and its primary insurance carrier engaged in a mediation with counsel representing the putativeclass. Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, in the interest of putting this matter behind it,the company and its insurer have reached a tentative settlement with plaintiffs, subject to final approval by the Court.

On Aug. 7, 2009, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, approving the form and manner of noticeto putative class members, and setting a final hearing to determine whether to approve the settlement on Nov. 16, 2009.

On Nov. 16, 2009, the Court held a final hearing and, no class members having objected to the settlement or having requested exclusion from the settlement class, the Court entered a final order dismissing all three consolidated cases with prejudice. The time for appeal expired on Dec. 16, 2009, without any appeal or other challenge to the judgment being made.

All amounts paid under the settlement have been paid out of proceeds of the company's directors and officers liability insurance coverage.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/-- is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the United States.

A lawsuit was filed against the company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer on April 6, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et al.).

On April 9, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Robert Hanratty in the same court against the same defendants. On April 10, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Denise Manandik in the same court against the same defendants. These lawsuits allege substantially the same matters.

The lawsuits refer to the April 1, 2009 announcement of the company that it will restate its unaudited financial statements for the first three quarters of 2008. The lawsuits purport to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of the company securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding the financial results and operating conditions for the first three quarters of 2008.

The plaintiffs ask for a determination of class action status, unspecified damages and costs of the legal action.

The company has notified its directors and officers liability insurer of the claims.

No further updates were reported in the March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Zynex, Inc. -- http://www.zynexmed.com/-- engineers, manufactures, markets, and sells its own design of electrotherapy medical devices in two distinct markets: standard digital electrotherapy products for pain relief and pain management; and the NeuroMove(TM) for stroke and spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Zynex's product lines are fully developed, FDA-cleared, commercially sold, and have been developed to uphold the company's mission of improving the quality of life for patients suffering from impaired mobility due to stroke, spinal cord injury, or debilitating and chronic pain.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.